Hensel v Foote - [2015] QLC 25

LAND COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: Hensel v Foote & Anor [2015] QLC 25

PARTIES:
Hans-Dieter Hensel
(applicant)

v

Janelle Florance Foote as Trustee &
Amber Bronwyn Hatfield as Trustee

(respondents)

FILE NO: MRA072-15

DIVISION: General Division

PROCEEDING: Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease

DELIVERED ON: 30 July 2015

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARD ON: Submissions closed on 19 May 2015

HEARD AT: Heard on the papers

MEMBER: G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar

ORDERS:
1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred and Eighty-Five Dollars ($185.00 )

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondents in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

CATCHWORDS:
MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - limited material provided by either party.

Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281.
Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A

Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76
Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor
[2014] QLC 38

Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23
Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15
Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73
Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117
Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014]QLC 42

APPEARANCES:
Not applicable

This matter involves a referral to the Land Court pursuant to s 279A of the Mineral Resources Act 1989 (MRA) for the determination of compensation in respect of the renewal of a mining lease.
On 27 August 2013, Hans-Dieter Hensel (the miner) applied for the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 over land located approximately 23 km west south-west of Mount Garnet in the Mareeba District. The land is within the Mareeba Shire local government area. Further renewal is sought for a period of 10 years. The purpose of the proposed renewal is for the mining of stone-granite.
Access to the mining lease area is partly across a track owned by the respondents, Janelle Florance Foote as Trustee and Amber Bronwyn Hatfield as Trustee and is more particularly described as Lot 2238 on PH2016. Mapping data supplied by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM) indicates that the length of the access track on the respondents’ property is approximately 3.35 km.
No specific details regarding the width of the access track have been provided so I will adopt a figure of 10 m, which will result in an access area of 3.35 ha. I consider this to be a realistic assessment which also accords with other Land Court determinations in the Mareeba district.[1]
[1] Densyl Sandstone Pty Ltd v White & Anor [2014] QLC 35; Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38

Relevant Legislation

Section 279 of the MRA provides that a mining lease shall not be granted or renewed unless an agreement in relation to compensation has been filed or, in the absence of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hensel v Foote

Details

AGLC: Hensel v Foote [2015] QLC 25
Case: [2015] QLC 25
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hensel v Foote involved a dispute regarding the compensation to be paid for the renewal of a mining lease. The matter was heard and determined in the Queensland Magistrates Court. The primary issue before the court was the determination of compensation for the renewal of the mining lease, given the limited material provided by either party.

The court was tasked with considering the factors relevant to the determination of compensation for the renewal of a mining lease, particularly in light of the minimal evidence provided by the parties. The primary focus was on the appropriate method of calculating compensation, and the weight to be given to the evidence, or lack thereof, presented by the parties. The court had to balance the need for a fair and reasonable outcome against the limited information available.

The court found that, given the limited material provided by either party, the compensation should be set at One Hundred and Eighty-Five Dollars ($185.00). The court reasoned that this amount represented a fair and reasonable compensation for the renewal of the mining lease, taking into account the limited evidence available. The court further ordered that the compensation be paid by the miner to the respondents within three months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred and Eighty-Five Dollars ($185.00 )

2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondents in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Hensel v Foote & Anor [2015] QLC 25
PARTIES:	Hans-Dieter Hensel (applicant)
v
Janelle Florance Foote as Trustee & Amber Bronwyn Hatfield as Trustee
(respondents)
FILE NO:	MRA072-15
DIVISION:	General Division
PROCEEDING:	Determination of compensation for renewal of mining lease
DELIVERED ON:	30 July 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARD ON:	Submissions closed on 19 May 2015
HEARD AT:	Heard on the papers
MEMBER:	G.J Smith, Judicial Registrar
ORDERS:	1. Compensation is determined in the total sum of One Hundred and Eighty-Five Dollars ($185.00 ) 2. The miner is to pay compensation to the respondents in the amount set out in Order 1 hereof within three (3) months of the renewal of Mining Lease 20043 by the Department of Natural Resources and Mines.
CATCHWORDS:	MINING LEASE – determination of compensation -renewal - factors to be considered - limited material provided by either party. Mineral Resources Act 1989, ss 279, 279A, 281. Land Court Rules 2000, Rule 36A Unimin Australia Limited v Freeman [2007] QLC 76 Eacham Abrasive Blasting Pty Ltd v Gundersen & Anor [2014] QLC 38
Oosen v Emu Creek Bar-Barrum Aboriginal Corporation (2008) QLC 23 Re Fitzgerald & Anor (2009) QLC 15 Re Fitzgerald and Hughes (2009) QLC 73 Re Kimmoth & Poole (2009) QLC 117 Palmer Gold NQ Pty Ltd v Strathleven WAR(NQ) Pty Ltd [2014]QLC 42
APPEARANCES:	Not applicable